Validates OAuth credentials for a local Apple Ads profile and returns the caller identity to confirm authentication.
Validate OAuth credentials and return the caller identity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | local Apple Ads profile name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | payload | |
| error | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| rateLimit | No | ||
| pagination | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the call returns identity, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It says nothing about failure behavior (what an invalid/expired credential produces) or that it touches an external OAuth endpoint, which is the main missing behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, action-first, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists and the sole parameter is fully documented, so the description only needs to state intent and return shape, which it does. The remaining gap is error/negative-path behavior, which an agent calling an auth check would plausibly want.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single `profile` parameter, so the schema documents it fully and the baseline is 3. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it neither adds meaning nor compensates for anything — it simply relies on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource: validate OAuth credentials and return the caller identity. An agent immediately knows this is a credential/identity check rather than a data query, and no sibling covers that ground. It loses a point because it never reconciles 'caller identity' with the required `profile` argument (a local profile name), which is the more important semantic detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. An agent must infer that this is a pre-flight sanity check to run before other calls; nothing in the text says whether it is required first, optional, or a diagnostic only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.